The Price of Food

Rising food prices are causing a decrease in conservation practices among farmers, according to this article in the New York Times.

The article focused primarily on agronomic crops such as wheat but mentioned the overall increase in production cost. What’s production cost? Simply put it’s the amount of money a farmer has to spend to grow a crop. Production costs are typically estimated per acre. High fuel prices are a major contributor to increased production cost.

Anyone who has filled up their car or truck with gas recently has noticed the increase in gas prices. Most agricultural machinery in the United States runs on diesel fuel which has also increased in price. Diesel fuel used for agricultural equipment (tractors, combines, etc.) might seem cheaper at first glance but has also has also been subjected to the same skyrocketing prices.

Another important component in agriculture, synthetic fertilizer, has also dramatically increased in price. This coupled with the rising fuel costs means that the cost of production per acre increases also. What it all boils down to is that even though food prices are higher, it doesn’t necessarily mean farmers will be making more money.

For example say I wanted to grow an acre of sweet corn, and make money selling the corn. To figure out what I’d need to charge for that corn some things I’d need to consider cost of: fuel, corn seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor. Other factors such as property taxes, machinery wear, and cost of machinery. This list of costs isn’t comprehensive but hopefully illustrates growing crops isn’t free.

Let’s take the example a bit further. Say you sell your corn crop and get $500.00/acre*. Before you take that money to the bank you’ll need to figure out how much it cost to grow that corn. You look back at your production records and estimate that it cost $200 to grow that acre of corn, so you ended up making $300.00/acre. Alright $300.00/acre profit doesn’t seem too bad but say your production costs were $450.00/acre or $600.00/acre. In these cases you’d be making $50.00 or losing $100.00. Unfortunately costs of production aren’t always reflected 100% in the price of the crop, but that’s a whole different story.

*Note: I made up the price per unit. The actual price per unit (bushel, ton, etc.) would depend on the crop and were it was being sold. A roadside stand might sell sweet corn by the dozen whereas a cannery might buy it by the ton.

Grow Local

Buying fresh veggies (and other items) locally is one option if you're concerned about food borne illness or pesticide residue.

What if you… can't afford to buy everything local, want more exercise, or just like fresh vegetables? Then… start a vegetable garden!

Nothing is quite as local and fresh as produce grown in your own back yard or community garden. Garden activities like soil preparation and pulling weeds provide plenty of exercise and can be a welcome relief after a long day at work.

If you’ve never had a garden before don’t worry its easy to get started. If I had to give one piece of advice it would be to: start simple and plant things that are relatively easy to grow. Certain vegetable crops such as lettuce, tomatoes, peas, and beans are easier to grow than asparagus, watermelons, peppers, and onions.

Where’s a good place to find gardening information? Information for local gardeners can be found through the cooperative extension, books, or on line sources.

Local Veggies

Worried about pesticide residues on your food? Well pesticide residues aren’t the major cause of food borne illness. Contamination of food by pathogenic bacteria and other organiss is probably more common. Many of these incidents go unreported making it hard to estimate the extent of food related illness. Cases of foodborne illness turn up fairly often with cantaloupe being the most recent.

If you are concerned with food born illness, are still worried about pesticide residues on food, or just like fresh veggies. Buy local! Local foods have been a hot topic lately and are catching on, even in my home state. This is probably due in part to the latest books by Michael Pollan, The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals and In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto.

Toxic Tomatoes

Continued from Wednesday’s post…

Food items such as meat, milk, celery, potatoes, are pictured and discussed in “The Dirty Dozen: Top 12 Foods to Eat Organic.” I can’t speak for the fruit, meat, and dairy items listed, but the statements about the vegetables crops don’t strike me as being entirely accurate.

Bell peppers, celery, and tomatoes are listed as having thin skins which in theory allows for pesticide contamination. The description of pesticide use on tomatoes is especially interesting, and is described by the following quote: “The standard regimen of pesticides used on conventionally raised tomatoes numbers 30. Their easily punctured skins are no match for chemicals that will eventually permeate the whole tomato.” After reading this statement I pictured tomatoes as being a big sponge, soaking up any all pesticides applied.

Are all tomatoes (and other thin skinned vegetables) laden with pesticides then? Well first there are maximum pesticide reside amounts allowed on food, described on the 26th. And produce is tested for pesticide residues. The volume of fresh vegetables consumed means that only a small portion of the vegetables are actually tested. A single tomato purchased from a grocery store probably hasn’t been tested for pesticide residues, but other tomatoes like it have. If regulations have been followed then it is likely that pesticide residues will fall within an acceptable range.

The characteristics of a tomato plant and its fruit mean that only certain pesticides can be used. For example say a new pesticide was being developed for use in tomatoes. After testing this product on tomatoes plants it was discovered that the pesticide was able to pass through the skin of the tomato. As a result of these findings that chemical could not be legally used on tomato plants.

Pesticides in Your Food

An interesting series of pictures called “The Dirty Dozen: Top 12 Foods to Eat Organic” turned up on msn.com recently.

As the title suggests the foods pictured represent some of those most commonly contaminated by pesticides. They failed to explain what exactly they meant by “pesticide contamination.”

Typically pesticide contamination is measured in parts per million (ppm). What is a part per million? Here is how I like to think about it, image a room with 1 million marbles: 999,999 of those marbles are green and one of those marbles is red. The red marble represents 1 ppm. Say there are 5 red marbles in that group of 1 million, those marbles represent 5 ppm.

Okay back to pesticide contamination. The article didn’t mention if the pesticide contamination exceeded the amount allowed legally or if the concentration of those pesticides allowed was still considered harmful. On the other hand they could be making the assumption that the food items in question are not being tested properly resulting in pesticide contamination.

It is really hard to determine what exactly they mean by pesticide contamination. The statements along with the pictures support all three cases listed above.

Just because a product is organic does not mean that it will not have pesticide contamination. There are some pesticides that can be used in organic agriculture. These products are approved by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI). To see listings of what can be legally used in organic production visit the OMRI products list.

To be continued…

Bean Harvest

Pull and windrow vs. direct cut, which is the better way to harvest dry beans? There is some controversy about which method works better. But first what is pulling, windrowing, and direct cutting?

Pulling is probably the most common method of dry bean harvest. To me the term pulling is kind of misleading. I picture dry bean plants being pulled out of the ground by hand, just like weeds. Harvest of dry beans is usually mechanical and makes use of two types of pullers: knife and rod. These devices cut the bean plants just below the soil surface. The process reminds me a little bit of digging potatoes.

After pulling the beans are then windrowed. Windrowing is kind of like raking hay, the bean plants are moved into small piles that run the length or width of the field. The windrows are then picked up with a combine which separates out the seeds from the rest of the plant, this process is called threshing.

Traditional dry bean harvest methods require several passes over the field and can be time consuming. For this reason some growers have moved to direct cutting their beans. Direct cutting requires one pass with a combine which cuts and threshes the beans at the same time.

Why would beans be pulled and windrowed instead of directly combined? After all self propelled combines have been around for quite awhile. The main problem with direct cutting is that it tends beat up the beans a lot more. Damage is more visible on lighter colored varieties like those in the light red kidney class. Darker beans like black turtle soups don’t show as much damage.

The salability of direct combined beans comes down to visible damage. Buyers may discourage direct combining, but if the beans look okay then they’ll sell and usually there won’t be any questions about harvest. If there are a lot of damaged beans, that’s when they start to ask about how they were harvested.

Time and Tillage Part II

Most of the information I’ve gleaned about time saved using reduced tillage has come from growers. In general the consensus is that reduced tillage saves both time and fuel. These two factors are cited as the primary reason that reduced tillage is a profitable alternative to conventional tillage.

Last week at the New York State dry bean meeting several growers mentioned that the amount of time saved with reduced tillage made the system worthwhile. One fellow who had switched to reduced tillage several years ago remarked that he spent less time tilling and was able to finish field work during the day light hours, or in to paraphrase his words: you spend less time banging around in the fields after dark. He also mentioned that equipment lasted longer and he needed less horsepower. To make use of the tractors he had left from conventional tillage he had just bought a 30 foot grain drill (used). Here’s another interesting point. The grain drill in question came from Ohio and with freight it was still cheaper than a new 15 foot drill in New York. Used equipment if it has been properly maintained can be quite a deal.

Another component of reduced tillage we aren’t able to measure at the research level is equipment maintenance. Reduced tillage typically requires less machinery than conventional tillage. When compared to conventional tillage the maintenance requirements and costs of maintenance are typically lower for reduced tillage implements.